"Para-journalism" as a threat and/or enrichment
The media crisis is creating information gaps that are critical to democracy, which organizations like my employer are trying to fill. Some journalists find this development troubling. So it’s high time to draw a distinction between traditional and necessary PR, says Oliver Classen.
It was a classic case of blaming myself. Or communicative overzealousness, which is often the same thing in my profession. On the way to the second Research Day at the Lucerne Media Training Center (MAZ), I asked colleagues for professional input for the sold-out event. Via Twitter, of course, which an Beobachter editor immediately responded to with the counter-question of what "a lobbyist is doing at #rt_maz". The comment from a former editorial colleague and current MAZ head of studies that I was contributing my knowledge as an NGO researcher provoked a comparison that - in contrast to the understandable initial question - left me rather dismayed: "Every lobbyist says they are fighting for the good. Even the head of the industry association Interpharma."
Okay, I confess: my job primarily consists of creating media resonance for the topics, theories and studies of my employer. That's what it says in my job profile and that's also how I see my professional role. But that's all the similarities between my work (and that of almost all NGOs) and that of the PR headquarters of corporations, associations, authorities and governments. Of course, for particularly good, i.e. particularly critical journalists, this is nothing more than the bold claim of a lobbyist who is particularly concerned about integrity.
It is based on an analysis of the diametrically opposed motives and methods of conventional PR and - in view of a fourth estate suffering from a lack of resources - necessary PR. By definition, THEY represent the positions and institutions of political or economic power, whereas people like WE represent the structurally powerless. Which is why their task all too often consists of passive-aggressive obstruction of journalism, but ours always consists of (supporting or owning) attempts to shed light on dark machinations and opaque contexts.
Accordingly, the same investigative tools are used by editorial offices and research-based NGOs. My main interest at the MAZ was therefore the exchange of experiences in matters of source protection, publicity law, screening of non-listed companies and the use of judicial documents as news sources. And since there are more points of contact than ever in times of booming sweatshop research, offshore leaks and commodity reports, the discussions between the workshops were just as exciting as the workshops themselves.
So it was no coincidence that my last appearance at the Swiss School of Journalism was about shifting role models in the increasingly gray areas between journalism and politics. The host called me a "para-journalist" at the time, which, despite its military connotations, is not entirely inappropriate, is it? In any case, the discussion seems necessary to me and is hereby officially opened.
Oliver Classen is media spokesman for the development policy organization Berne Declaration. Previously, he worked as a media journalist.
